SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2373, 23 June 1892, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTING,

Timaru—Tuesday, June 21st,

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Dcnnistoun.] A session of the Supreme Court of New Zealand was opened at the Timaru Courthouse at 11 a.m. on Tuesday. TRUE BILLS. The Grand Jury returned true bills against all the accused except that of Joseph Greenfield, charged with rape at Oamaru, and completed their duties and were discharged at 12.30. LARCENY OF MONEY. Phoebe Jane Parker pleaded not guilty to the charge of stealing £ls in notes, the moneys of Sarah E. Farrell, at the Grosvenor Hotel, Timaru, on the 27th March last.

Mr Raymond appeared to defend. The following formed the potty jury : —A. L. Barker (foreman), W. Morton, E. T. Chapman, L. Tombs, T. Gibson, F. Morris, C. Matthews, W. Harold, 8. Kean, G. Washington, F. R. Jones, and J. M’unro.

Mr J. W. White, Crown Prosecutor, outlined the evidence to be adduced. On the afternoon of the 25th March last the prosecutrix placed three new £5 Union Bank notes between the two mattresses of her bed in her room in the Grosvenor Hotel, where she was barmaid. The notes were seen there the following day by Bridget McKay, the laundress, who made the bed on that day, and she called the attention of the cook to the fact that the notes were there. Neither of these girls took the notes. On the two following days accused made the bed. On the afternoon of the 29th the prosecutrix went to get the notes, and they were gone. She called accused, who 'was about, who, without being accused in any way, said she had not taken them and had not seen them. Prosecutrix complained to Mrs Meikle, and Mrs Meikle thereupon locked a storeroom where the boxes belonging to accused and McKay were stored. Detective Livingstone was sent for, and, after searching the other servants’ rooms, boxes, and clothing, he wont to the locked storeroom, and there, in a small box within a locked boottrunk belonging to accused, and of which she furnished the key, the detective found three new £5 Union Bank notes. Accused was present, and she said that they were not hers, and she did not put them there. He understood the defence to be set up was that some other person took the notes from prosecutrix’s room and put them in accused’s box. If any such defence was set up the jury would have to find : first, that some other person had a motive for doing so diabolical a thing; and, secondly, that that person had an opportunity for doing it. As to the opportunity, it would be shown that accused always had her boxes locked. Evidence in support of Mr White’s statement was taken, and the accused gave evidence for the defence. She denied any knowledge of the money found in her box, and said it must have been put there by one of her fellow-servants, with whom she had had “ tiffs.”

After counsel had addressed the Court, His Honor summed up against the accused, and the jury retired. They returned with a verdict of guilty, and a recommendation to mercy, adding a rider tha tthey thought Miss Farrell to blame for leaving the money in such a way. His Honour said he quite agreed with the remark of the jury, and he hoped the case would be a warning to other people in similar circumstances.

Mr Raymond applied for the prisoner to be admitted to probation. His Honour said he had laid down a rule, and it was followed by at least one other judge, never to extend the benefit of probation iu a case where the accused supported the defence by what the verdict of the jury implied must be perjury. The jury had found a verdict which implied that the prisoner had defended herself by giving false evidence on oath, and in this case her evidence had the effect of suggesting a wicked fraud on the part of a fellow servant. He was not punishing the accused for the perjury but on account of that perjury be would not admit her to probation. She had, by her defence, shown her unfitness for it. Looking at the temptation, if accused had not supported her case by perjury, she might have been given probation, and the jury very properly drew attention to the very strange way in which the money was concealed. The sentence would be imprisonment with hard labour for three months. THEFTS. The rest of the prisoners pleaded guilty to the charges against them. W. Campbell, for stealing a watch and chain from Patrick McGuire at Timaru on May 27th, was sentenced to sis months’ hard labour. Henry Niven, for stealing a watch, chain, and purse from John Niven at Waimate, was sentenced to nine months, with lull’d labour, for what His Honour characterised as an impudent robbery. Mr Raymond spoke for the accused for mitigation of penalty. Thos. Crnickshauk, for stealing a cheque for £(}, the property qf J. Me Nab, was sentenced to eighteen mouths, there being some previous convictions against him, counterbalanced to some extent, His Honour remarked, by the fact that there was nothing against him during the last four or five years. Win. Coombs, charged with shopbreaking and stealing jewellery at Geraldine, Mr Raymond described ns a weak-minded man. His Honour said weak-minded men’who broke into shops must lie sent to the asylum or the goal. Sentenced to six months, witlj hard labqur. ARSON, William Williams, a lad of 10, who pleaded guilty to wilfully setting fire to a sNtck nf straw belonging to Mr C, Story, Temuka, was destribed as a boy who could not keep opt of mischief, His Honor said he hardly know what to do with such a boy, lie was too old for a reformatory, and lie could not order him to be whipped. The only thing was to try a substantial taste of prison discipline, and see if tlpt wqujd do l}bn any good. Ho was sentenced to hard labor for 12 mouths. This concluded the criminal business. CIVIL SESSION. Wednesday, June 22nd. Margaret Bailey v. D. M. Ross, This was a disputed will case. The Hon. W. D. Stewart, with him Messrs Perry,

Pony, and Kinnerney appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr T. L. Joynt, with him Messrs Hay and Postleth waite, for the defendant. The case lasted all day, and will in all probability take up the whole of to-day also. We are compelled to hold over our report of it until next issue.

At the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Tuesday, Tasman Cook and John Brown were found guilty of robbery from the person. Cook said he alone committed the robbery. J. Driscoll was found guilty of a similar offence. Sentences were deferred.

At Napier on Tuesday Joseph Roberts got two years for stealing a watch and chain from Thos. Baddeley. Ann Rickson pleaded guilty to stealing articles from a fellow-servant, and was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. Urn Kurakura was sentenced to four months for horse-stealing, and Te Miriti to two months for forgery.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. Temuka—Tuesday, June 21, 1892, (Before M. Quinn and J. M. Twomey, Esqs., J.P.’s.) THE SHEEP ACT. F. R. Oldfield was charged, on the information of the Stock Inspector Mr Douglas, with exposing for sale in a public yard certain sheep infected with lice. The defendant admitted the charge, and was fined the minimum penalty of 20s, with costs. POLICE OFFENCES ACT. Geo. Meredith was charged with leaving the carcase of a horse, which had died on a public road, un buxded. From the evidence of Constable Bourke it appeared that the Temuka Road Board had been put to the expense of burying the horse, and accused was ordered to pay the cost of same, together with Court costs —in all 26s 6d. CIVIL CASES. J. Brown v. W. Wells Claim £2 14s 3d. —The claim was proved by 11. Williams, manager for the Temuka Carriage Factory, and judgment was given for amount claimed and costs. J. Cnnnard v. G. Piskey—Claim £4l3s, balance of account.

Mr Salmoud for plaintiff In this case the original claim was admitted, but an item credit, viz., three days’ labor, 18s, was disputed by defendant.

From the evidence it appeared that plaintiff had employed defendant to erect a fence, and assisted him to do so. The work took about three days, and ho credited him with 18s, that being the usual rate of pay.

The defendant stated that he had undertaken to erect a fence for plaintiff at 3s per chain. He put up eleven chains altogether. Plaintiff assisted him occasionally, but not by request. Had no written agreement; the arrangement was a mere verbal one. Had been paid as much as 5s a chain for a similar fence. Worked early and late to make it nay.

To Mr Salmon d : Cunnard assisted him to fix posts and strain the wire. Was not there all the time.

The Bench, after consideration, said that in the absence of evidence of any agreement as to a contract having been entered into, judgment would be for amount claimed and costs. The Court then rose.